People of the
Philippines and AAA v. Court of Appeals 21st Division, Mindanao Station,
Raymund Carampatana, Jeofhel Oporto, and Moises Alquizola G.R. No. 183652,
February 25, 2015
FACTS:
Accused-appellants
Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola were charged with the crime of rape of AAA.
The RTC convicted Carampatana and Oporto guilty as principals and Alquizola as
an accomplice while the CA acquitted them of the crime charged.
AAA attended a
graduation dinner party with her friends. AAA, together with Lim, Oporto, and
Carampatana. After the dinner, they had drinking session. During such session,
she felt dizzy so she laid her head down on Oporto’s lap. Oporto then started
kissing her head and they would remove her baseball cap. This angered her so
she told them to stop, and simply tried to hide her face with the cap. But they
just laughed at her. Then, Roda also kissed her. She fell asleep but was
woken up so that she could drink the remaining liquor inside the Brandy bottle.
She refused but they insisted so she drank. Again, AAA fell asleep.
When she regained consciousness, she saw that she was already at the
Alquizola Lodging House. She recognized that place because she had been there
before. She would thereafter fall back asleep and wake up again. And during one
of the times that she was conscious, she saw Oporto on top of her, kissing her
on different parts of her body, and having intercourse with her. At one point,
AAA woke up while Carampatana was inserting his penis into her private organ. Alquizola
then joined and started to kiss her. For the last time, she fell unconscious.
On February 28, 2006,
the RTC found private respondents Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. It, however, acquitted Dela Cruz,
Rudinas, Roda, Batoctoy, and Villame for failure of the prosecution to prove
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The CA found that the
prosecution failed to prove private respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It gave more credence to the version of the defense and ruled that AAA
consented to the sexual congress. She was wide awake and aware of what private
respondents were doing before the intercourse. She never showed any physical
resistance, never shouted for help, and never fought against her alleged
ravishers. The appellate court further relied on the medical report which
showed the presence of an old hymenal laceration on AAA’s genitalia, giving the
impression that she has had some carnal knowledge with a man before. The CA
also stressed that AAA’s mother’s unusual reaction of hitting her when she
discovered what happened to her daughter was more consistent with that of a
parent who found out that her child just had premarital sex rather than one who
was sexually assaulted.
On July 29, 2008, AAA,
through her private counsel, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65,
questioning the CA Decision which reversed private respondents’ conviction and
ardently contending that the same was made with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The private
respondents, in their Comment, argued that a judgment of acquittal is
immediately final and executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal
because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
ISSUE:
Whether the petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65 is correctly filed by AAA
RULING:
Yes.
As a general rule, the prosecution cannot
appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the
defendant in a criminal case. A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and
executory, and the prosecution is barred from appealing lest the constitutional
prohibition [ Section 21, Article III] against double jeopardy be violated.
In a special civil
action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional
grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person
aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended
party or complainant.
Here, AAA filed a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, albeit at the instance of her private
counsel, primarily imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA
when it acquitted private respondents. As the aggrieved party, AAA clearly has
the right to bring the action in her name and maintain the criminal
prosecution. She has an immense interest in obtaining justice in the case
precisely because she is the subject of the violation.
For the writ of
certiorari to issue, the respondent court must be shown to have acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An
acquittal is considered tainted with grave abuse of discretion when it is shown
that the prosecution’s right to due process was violated or that the trial
conducted was a sham.
AAA claims in her
petition that the CA, in evident display of grave abuse of judicial discretion,
totally disregarded her testimony as well as the trial court’s findings of
fact, thereby adopting hook, line, and sinker, the private respondents’
narration of facts.
The term "grave
abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal
can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done
in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to
act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. There is
grave abuse of discretion when the disputed act of the lower court goes beyond
the limits of discretion thus effecting an injustice.
The Court finds that the
petitioner has sufficiently discharged the burden of proving that the
respondent appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting
private respondents.
It appears that in
reaching its judgment, the CA merely relied on the evidence presented by the
defense and utterly disregarded that of the prosecution. At first, it may seem
that its narration of the facts of the case was meticulously culled from the
evidence of both parties.
The victim is crying
rape but the accused are saying it was a consensual sexual rendezvous. Thus,
the CA’s blatant disregard of material prosecution evidence and outward bias in
favor of that of the defense constitutes grave abuse of discretion resulting in
violation of petitioner’s right to due process.
Moreover, the CA
likewise easily swept under the rug the observations of the RTC and made its
own flimsy findings to justify its decision of acquittal.
Hence, certiorari under
Rule 65 is correctly filed by AAA.
